- Mirza Malkum Khan Nazem Od-Dowleh (1860's)

In the last issue, we shed light on the urgent need for a new leadership in Iran. We stated that if change does not immediately take place, the unity of our nation would be at risk. Consequently and due to the precarious conditions caused by the internal and external policies of the clerics regime in Tehran, Focus On Iran, will dedicate two issues to the perils of Iran's disintegration. Almost everyone is aware of the dire internal conditions. The tremendous financial burden on the public, the discrimination against women and religious minorities, violations of basic and fundamental human rights, and the recent economic sanctions of the U.S. have all contributed to the increasing unpopularity of the regime. The corruption, incompetence and the shortsightedness of the current leaders are also widely known. Nonetheless, Focus On Iran will concentrate its argument on the consequences of the continuation of the Islamic Republic and the grave threat it poses both to the people of Iran and to the territorial integrity of this noble nation. We cannot stress enough that the only path to end the misery of people, to regain their fundamental rights, and to secure the independence and integrity of our nation, is to replace the current hodgepodge with a strong and democratic national government.

Iran is suffering under the leadership of the mullahs. These so called leaders, are helpless in ridding Iran and its people from any economic, social, and political ills, which the clerics themselves have brought about. The helm of our nation today is in the hands of the most ignorant, despotic and close-minded minority. A minority that is headed by 30 or 40 so-called pious mullahs, who make decisions regarding the present and future of nearly 70 million people. The technocrats who have remained in Iran and compassionately wish to serve their nation, are also helpless since the authority resides elsewhere. In Iran, everyone supports the idea of replacing the clerical regime. A great majority have amassed their hopes in the actions of the Iranians in exile, while the latter are either aloof or dis-united. Nonetheless, the enormous gap between the government and the governed in Iran could not be filled other than replacing the current regime. The behavior of the clerics has caused its isolation not only in the eyes of its own people but it has also brought about the label of "the street fighter nation" in the international arena. As long as the clerics are in power, and as long as the Constitution is based on the notion of "Velayate Faqih" - The Governance of the Supreme Theologian - the latter conditions will persist also. The support of international terrorism, efforts in propagating a revolutionary Islam, aiding and embracing the radical Islamists, opposing the peace process and regional stability, and the pursuit of the "nuclear option", will continue at the cost of any economic and social reforms. As a consequence, the people of Iran are deprived from their freedom and security, and while the social conditions continue to decay, giving rise to an even further gap between the regime and the various cultural and social stratus of Iran, an eventual catastrophic disintegration could be in the making. Such a calamity would be inevitable, unless the people, the opposition inside and outside of Iran, recognize the severity of these conditions, and take the vital and timely step in uniting, in order to replace the current leadership.

WE IRANIANS OUGHT TO BE ALARMED

The political mutations and the path selected by the current leadership, point to an extremely grim future for Iran. We Iranians, either inside or outside of Iran, must be alarmed and concerned about such dire notions, and while seriously considering their consequences, we ought to seek an immediate remedy. Undoubtedly, the primary element in preserving the territorial integrity of Iran throughout its tumultuous history, has been its national identity, namely an adherence to its cultural nationalism which is based on tolerance and moderation founded by the Iranian prophet Zarathustra many centuries prior to the advent of Islam and, re-kindled by the epic poet Ferdowsi, in the post-Islamic years.

Today we are surrounded by countries which throughout history, and due to the frailty or absence of a central government, have raided our soil. Furthermore, since the nation enjoys variations of the Persian culture, customs and social organizations, the debility of a central power or the oppression and unfairness of the central government has historically transformed itself into a centrifugal force, posing a challenge to the integrity of the country. Amazingly enough, Iran has always been able to preserve its independence with the aid of that identity and culture which happens to comprise its main strategic reserve. It has not only managed to keep its territorial integrity and remains a united entity, but it has unswervingly "conquered its conquerors" in a cultural sense also. This vital cultural weapon has always aided Iran in preserving its Independence. Iranians, at the same time have been the founders of cultural tolerance. The numerous cultural layers of the Iranian society have attested to the latter and although they might falsely portray a fragile facade, these layers internally, have had a marble-like resilience due to that sound and common national belief. However, the conditions are not the same, namely on one hand the clerical regime has undertaken the continual weakening of Iran's cultural nationalism and on the other hand the global situation is changing, while all the time the short-sighted policies of the leadership in Tehran have turned Iran's friends into its ill-wishers and foes.

THE POWER VACUUM IN IRAN

A power vacuum is extant in Iran. The clerics are not governing they are simply resorting to force in order to remain in power. According to the Spanish philosopher, Ortega y Gasset, "rule is the normal exercise of authority and is always based on public opinion". The Islamic Republic is completely void of this legitimate national power. This un-natural vacuum in the legitimate central power coupled with its corruption and tyranny, has always provoked the foreign incursions over the borders of Iran. The raid of Alexander the Macedonian at the end of the Achaemenid period, the Arab invasion towards the end of the Sasanian era, the swarming of the Ghaznavid and Seljuq Turks, and the genocidal invasions of Genghis and Tamerlane, were all due to frailness in leadership and power vacuums. At the onset of the Safavid dynasty also, the inexperience of the ruling class and their ideological campaign coupled with a power vacuum in the western frontier and Azarbaijan resulted in the pillage of these areas by the Ottoman ruler, Salim I. The incursion of Mahmoud the Afghan in the 18th century, the territorial transgressions of Russia and Great Britain during the 19th century and later during World War 1, and finally the recent attack of Saddam Husainn in September of 1980, were all consequences of a weak central government, a power vacuum and the disintegration of the Armed Forces. Foreign invasions have always commenced after the presence of such dire circumstances. In internal circles also, such conditions have resulted in a centrifugal force which have manifested themselves
in local secessionism and separatism. The particularity of the geo-politics quintessential to the Iranian plateau, has had a dualistic impact on our history. Strong, informed, and nationalistic governments of Iran have successfully manipulated this situation to the benefit of the populace, while imbecilic leaders have turned these natural privileges into detriments, disrupting peace and public security, and eventually affording others a chance to invade Iran, putting at risk its territorial integrity and its existence.

IRAN AMONGST THE EUROPEAN POWERS IN THE PAST TWO CENTURIES

In the past 200 years, specifically in the 19th century and after the appearance of Napoleon Bonaparte along with his plans to invade India and the coming of his emissaries to Iran, headed by General Claud Gardane, raised the stakes and importance of Iran in the eyes of the Europeans.

The plans of Napoleon in regards to India, made great waves in the Middle East and Iran. Even after Napoleon, Iran become the center of attention among the competitive policies of Britain and Russia. For two centuries Iran was caught in the powerful paws of these two European Powers, such that:

1) In their competitive colonial ambitions, these two powers manipulated and took advantage of the weakness, ignorance and the corruption in the Iranian government by gaining concessions and hacking away, and gobbling different segments of the nation. To attest this, we are reminded of the Russo-Iranian Wars and the resulting Treaty of Golestan in 1814 (confirming Russian possession of Georgia) and the incompetence and thoughtlessness of the leading clergy which caused a yet more shameful Treaty of Torkman Chai in 1828 (giving Russia the Iranian districts of Iravan and Nakhjavan, extracting a large indemnity from Iran and reserving military navigation on the Caspian to Russian ships). In yet another instance, the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1857 after Governor General of India declared war on Iran, and under the pretext of Great Britain wishing Nasser-Oddin Shah to recognize the independence of Afghanistan. Other incidents intended to dismember Iran, include the missions of Generals McMahon and Gold-Smith in regards to the border disputes in Sistan and Baluchestan.

2) The security of Iran was still at risk even when the interests of these two powers coincided, i.e., when they decided to divide Iran into two distinct spheres of influence in their 1907 treaty, or their combined invasion of Iran's territory in 1941.

3) When one of these colonial powers, temporarily had to leave the political scene of Iran, the latter's security would still be endangered. Historical examples are the imposition of the 1919 Treaty by the British while the Russians were pre-occupied with the Bolshevik Revolution, or the prolongation of the Russian invasion of the Northern areas of Iran, and the artificial issues of autonomy raised by their lackeys in Azarbaijan and Kurdistan, while Great Britain was redressing the catastrophic impacts of World War II. In reality, since Iran was viewed as the "Bridge of Victory" for the Allies in the War, its rights and ambitions in defending its territorial integrity were respected universally and was specifically backed in the U.N. Security Council by the U.S. administration, in one of the first cases ever presented there. It must be noted that the Soviet occupation of the Iranian province of Azarbaijan, immediately following World War II, and the subsequent creation of puppet regimes in Tabriz and Mahabad were vigorously opposed by the government in Tehran. The latter 's threat of using its Armed Forces to oust the puppet regimes, irrespective of the overwhelming military superiority of its Soviet backers, was sufficient for the U.N., along with the unqualified support of the U.S., to back Iranian demands and force the Soviets to abandon their occupation of Azarbaijan and their puppets in Mahabad and Tabriz. The alliance with U.S. which served as a deterring shield against any future ambitions of the Soviets, was pursued until 1979.

A overview of the past two centuries would reveal that Iran protected its independence by adhering to a policy of "negative equilibrium" between Russia and Great Britain. During the Cold War Iran depended on the American nuclear shield for a probable Soviet invasion from the north. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the Islamic Republic had declared a policy of "neither East nor West", it tacitly relied upon Soviet deterrence for a possible U.S. attack on Iran, but in the aftermath of the Desert Storm War, the clerics concluded that they need to develop their own nuclear weapon.

As mentioned earlier and due to the severity and importance of the issue, the Azadegan Foundation will dedicate its next issue of Focus On Iran to the perils of disintegration also, aiming to shed light on the cultural disruption and the detrimental policies of the clerics regime in that regard.